Sorry for the delay ahaha I don’t have much time to make these kind of big texts

Answer to summerlander:

Summerlander:‘’I never said science explains everything’’

If you read the two phrases I quote from you, you can see that we can extract two opposite conclusions out of them:A: I don’t know if Astral projection is impossibleB: ‘’We can safely say they are not there’’ = Astral projection is impossible

‘’ there is a difference between saying something is impossible (which I have not said) and saying something is not happening according to the evidence’’If you were trying to say a different thing, that’s ok, it was a language problem…If you read your answer you have to admit that was a logical conclusion. I only wanted to clarify you position about the proposition ‘’ Astral projection is impossible’’ and seems to me that you agree with me, although you are not so septic like me and you still believe, at least unconsciously (I don’t know xDD) that science is absolute truth. When we argue rationally you accept my view, but probably you don’t want to believe it.

Or I’m interpreting you wrong and when you say that science does not explains everything you mean that, at the moment does not explain everything, but has the capacity for doing it in time and produces truth. And I disagree, because, you can´t know about it’s absolute truth. I’m referring empirical sciences - I’m excluding Mathematics (or at least, part of it). That would be other level of discussion and don’t have time or knowledge to go there.

Regarding what Brutal said:

Never mind, he can explain what he said, I’m not sure. I think when he said ‘’holy doctrine’ he was referring to the most important laws (like the laws of physics) and not to a bible or something dogmatic as that. (supposing the laws of physics are not). If you want to address my anti-verificacionism, ok, as you wish. That was what I supposed Brutal was trying to say.

Summerlander:’' if it was there, we would have found it by now’’

I continue to disagree. 1000 ears in the future you will probably be telling the same about 2013 – the time when we knew nothing about the nature of reality and could not predict a thing.

‘’No. The observation that one has never been seen to fly may lead to the a priori deduction’’

Yes that would not be enough to say he could not fly, I did not say that. I agree that he as the burden of proof and we should not believe him and you agree that we can´t say it’s impossible even if he does not present proof – case closed

‘’As for the assumption that the rules of the game are constant, I don't really get it?’’

What I was trying to say was: we don’t know if the laws of empirical science are truth because we are making inductions base on the observable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

‘Hume called this the principle uniformity of nature’’. If the natural laws are not constant the laws of physics are not true. I would agree with if you say that they are true if the period of uniformity. If the nature changes we would find a new set of laws. It depends of your epistemological interpretation of the laws of physics. If you say x always occurs, I would disagree. If you said ‘’x always occurs’’ if the current frame of nature reality, I agree.Imagine for example, for instance, that laws of nature change in every 12323 gazillion ears xD.

Although, Popper solved the problem of induction, saying that scientist don’t really do that…but well, that's leave that for now. If you want to talk about ti, that's ok

‘’we'd digress again and Peter wouldn't like ‘

If someone asks if A exists, I think is not digressing to talk about epistemology

’‘’its own biological version of sonar’’

I must ‘’deduce’’ that when we dream about a mountain, she is really there physically xDD

‘’ Again, I would use my reasoning above against this unproductive and unproven solipsism’

I did not say that solipsism is true. We have no knowable way to prove anti-realism, but we are in the same situation about realism.

‘’ then we have no choice but to play with it and our knowledge is based on how this illusion works. So, we still know something’’

I agree if you say that the scientific laws don’t depend on the existence of the entities they are referring. This depends of your definition of existence also. We would know scientific laws inside the illusion, yes. It seems that our problem always leads to the epistemological interpretation.

Summerland:‘’They exude an air of consciousness according to our observations. This is the evidence we have which makes solipsism seem absurd. You are only talking to me, because, like me, you have developed a theory of mind.’’

You are saying you believe that the people in your dreams exist? I must infer that.

Conclusion:

The scientific method is the only decent way of justified belief that is known I guess, so we must use it, but never trust in it like absolute, at the point of saying things are impossible and you agree, so….

Just an interesting question for you: ‘’And If what we see in a telescope is not really the right image?’’

Just to bring more data to the table I want to discuss some things of Hagart's hypothesis

Hagart:‘’After all, without waves, we would not perceive anything at all’’

It’s interesting, but if you think well, that also applies if you consider that there atoms and not waves. Because, by a scientific approach, we have to admit that color it’s a phenomenon that happens in our brain…is not a property of the exterior object, if there is one. So, what you are seeing is not the real object, but a brain characterization of waves. Even the image that we have from an atom is tricky, because they are not balls. We cannot perceive pure reality if that exists, because we have to filter something. Just the notion of perceiving pure reality seems to contradict itself. Because the word perceive let us think that is not pure reality. It’s hard even to think of what is pure reality, because your brain has to make an image of it, that comes in memories, perception, etc.

If you say we would not perceive anything at all, I guess it’s wrong, because we would ‘’perceive’’ the wave in other form

The notion of reality gets really tricky, I agree and have to think about that. The implications of your hypothesis have to be thought about.

At a first look on your hypothesis, it seems also that it would have to redefine the notion of astral projection I think. You make a contradiction, because when we talk about astral projection I assume that we are referring to a interactions with the ‘’real’’ world. But with hypothesis there are no ‘’real’’, the other frequencies are just equivalent to our frequency. I don’t know, this came across my mind.

Thinker wrote:We cannot perceive pure reality if that exists, because we have to filter something.

Yea, our brains are like filters. Imagine a room full of people talking. You can hear them all, but it's hard to discern them all. Then if you change your attention and focus around the room and tune in to each of the conversations individually, (Filtering compression waves), you can block out the other noises mentally and understand each of the conversations one at time. (Provided the room is not too large, and the number of talkers is limited. It's impossible in a crowded stadium for our feeble human minds).

And without any compression waves you would not hear anything at all. No waves; nothing for the brain to interpret. But the brain keeps doing it anyway and simply can't stop. Look at Lucid in the Sky's post about hearing voices during HI. I get that too sometimes and am hearing other reports about it. It sounds like hearing a group of people talking from another room or on a radio and it's hard to discern what they are saying. But as I fall deeper into a dream state, the voices start to make more sense to me and I can 'tune in' to them. (Where they are coming from is still debatable, and I don't know). But it goes to show that the brain just can't stop creating and processing even in the absence of known external waves to pick up through our senses. (They could be coming from within too). But it's a known fact that people tend to hallucinate during sensory deprivation, because our minds just keep going and don't turn off.

I've never seen an atom before, so I really don't know what they are. They don't have to be a wave to be detected by our brains, but merely reflect waves. (So saying this means, even I am not in love with my theory and it's just an idea.) Chemistry and physics work mathematically, and that's really all scientist know about reality. It's all calculable cause and effect. The difference between blue and red and all the colors in between are just numbers and equations. But we perceive them through our brain's filter and make them 'beautiful'.

And I also wonder about the sense of smell. Apparently we detect minute particles and odors are not carried by a wave. This would go against what I said: "Without waves we wouldn't perceive anything". OR.... it may mean that particles really are waves after all......

I really don't know! Just having deep thoughts. This all relates to the possibility of Astral Projection as I defined it earlier, but it can also relate to Remote Viewing or "interactions with the 'real' world" too. They go hand in hand.

I won't waste time with the epistemological debate, guys, but I will leave you all with a quote to ponder on:

"The universe is far stranger and far richer - more wondrously strange - than our meagre human imaginations can anticipate. Modern cosmology has driven us to consider ideas that could not even have been formulated a century ago. The great discoveries of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have not only changed the world in which we operate, they have revolutionized our understanding of the world - or worlds - that exist, or may exist, just under our noses: the reality that lies hidden until we are brave enough to search for it. This is why philosophy and theology are ultimately incapable of addressing by themselves the truly fundamental questions that perplex us about our existence. Until we open our eyes and let nature call the shots, we are bound to wallow in myopia."

-Lawrence Krauss

Science isn't about lingering and holding on to unproductive "what if" questions from our imagination. It is about an exciting voyage of discovery that may reveal how the universe works. We have already learned an awful lot about its evolution. B-)

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

Thinker wrote:We cannot perceive pure reality if that exists, because we have to filter something.

Yea, our brains are like filters. Imagine a room full of people talking. You can hear them all, but it's hard to discern them all. Then if you change your attention and focus around the room and tune in to each of the conversations individually, (Filtering compression waves), you can block out the other noises mentally and understand each of the conversations one at time. (Provided the room is not too large, and the number of talkers is limited. It's impossible in a crowded stadium for our feeble human minds).

And without any compression waves you would not hear anything at all. No waves; nothing for the brain to interpret. But the brain keeps doing it anyway and simply can't stop. Look at Lucid in the Sky's post about hearing voices during HI. I get that too sometimes and am hearing other reports about it. It sounds like hearing a group of people talking from another room or on a radio and it's hard to discern what they are saying. But as I fall deeper into a dream state, the voices start to make more sense to me and I can 'tune in' to them. (Where they are coming from is still debatable, and I don't know). But it goes to show that the brain just can't stop creating and processing even in the absence of known external waves to pick up through our senses. (They could be coming from within too). But it's a known fact that people tend to hallucinate during sensory deprivation, because our minds just keep going and don't turn off.

I've never seen an atom before, so I really don't know what they are. They don't have to be a wave to be detected by our brains, but merely reflect waves. (So saying this means, even I am not in love with my theory and it's just an idea.) Chemistry and physics work mathematically, and that's really all scientist know about reality. It's all calculable cause and effect. The difference between blue and red and all the colors in between are just numbers and equations. But we perceive them through our brain's filter and make them 'beautiful'.

And I also wonder about the sense of smell. Apparently we detect minute particles and odors are not carried by a wave. This would go against what I said: "Without waves we wouldn't perceive anything". OR.... it may mean that particles really are waves after all......

I really don't know! Just having deep thoughts. This all relates to the possibility of Astral Projection as I defined it earlier, but it can also relate to Remote Viewing or "interactions with the 'real' world" too. They go hand in hand.

''But it's a known fact that people tend to hallucinate during sensory deprivation, because our minds just keep going and don't turn off. ''

You reminded me about this: http://www.cracked.com/article/127_5-ways-to-hack-your-brain-into-awesomeness/

Funny article. The way is wiritten makes you laugh.See #4.Hallucinate Like You Just Took LSD, LegallyI don't know if you already knew this. I want to try that, but I'm a bit afraid : D

You also reminded me of a experiment that was made with a person inside a room with aboslutely no sound. The result is that humans cannot be more than several minutes in that situation. They start to vomit and collapsing (something smiliar to this)

Yes, if atoms are waves, your nose (don't know were it is) would detect the waves

Summerlander wrote:To Thinker: And why would it not be the right image, mon cherie?

I won't waste time with the epistemological debate, guys, but I will leave you all with a quote to ponder on:

"The universe is far stranger and far richer - more wondrously strange - than our meagre human imaginations can anticipate. Modern cosmology has driven us to consider ideas that could not even have been formulated a century ago. The great discoveries of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have not only changed the world in which we operate, they have revolutionized our understanding of the world - or worlds - that exist, or may exist, just under our noses: the reality that lies hidden until we are brave enough to search for it. This is why philosophy and theology are ultimately incapable of addressing by themselves the truly fundamental questions that perplex us about our existence. Until we open our eyes and let nature call the shots, we are bound to wallow in myopia."

-Lawrence Krauss

Science isn't about lingering and holding on to unproductive "what if" questions from our imagination. It is about an exciting voyage of discovery that may reveal how the universe works. We have already learned an awful lot about its evolution. B-)

[ Post made via Android ]

I suppose we have reasonable doubt.I ask you the same...why would it be the right image?I'm not claiming the opposite, I'm just saying you have no proof. The burden of proof,

It would be the right image because light from those distant objects in space reach us. It would be, of course, an image made by our brains but still contrained by sensory input. In other words, those photons would still have travelled through space and reached our eyes all according to the laws of nature. Hence, that is why it would be the "right" image according to the impact such signals from space have had on our brains. You would see that image every time you looked through the telescope. The mental model constrained by external influence, and, I might add, the product of both object and our make-up. It's an interpretation of what is going on out there, it's what the brain does. Now, if you see Mickey Mouse when you point your telescope at Andromeda and I see a galaxy then you need to have your head checked.

Again, I will pose the question to you, Thinker: Why would it not be the right image? Are you suggesting that the supernatural could be taking place? Again, an argument that ignores evidence and the burden of proof. We have plenty of evidence that our universe follows a natural order and none forthe preternatural or miracles.

Here's another one of my favourite quotes (this one is old but somewhat applicable! LoL):

"Human understanding has made it certain that two and one make three; and that one is not three; nor can three be one... Miracles or Prophecies might frighten us out of our Witts; might scare us to death; might induce Us to lie; to say that we believe that 2+2 make 5. But we should not believe it. We should know the contrary." - John Adams

John Adams...

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

Science isn't about making conclusions or establishing truths out of illusions or first appearances. A scientist wouldn't just merely look at the lines and say that one is longer than the other. He would get a ruler out and measure them both, thus arriving at the fact that they are both the same size. Science doesn't even take consciousness for granted, it has even considered the possibility that even this one could be a very elaborate illusion.

We also know that none of the atoms or molecules that constitute water are wet, and yet, the substance appears to have that property... B-)

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

While I'm non-lucid, absolutely! I assume that dream characters are real people because I don't even know I'm dreaming and many of my mental faculties are inoperable. However, once I become lucid (i.e. Know that I'm dreaming) I am able to control or transmute any apparent sentient being in the dream environment. I can mould things with my mind in the dream world hence all in my head.

Needless to say, the same does not happen when I'm awake and dealing with real people. Hence I infer that they are objectively real and most likely conscious as I am (theory of mind).

Astral projection believers, however, may believe that dream characters are real discarnate beings in some astral plane, and, instead of scepticism or due logic in the situation of being awake in a dream world, they have belief and assumption which will cause them to dismiss the test of control and transmutation and only add fuel to the fire...or, in this case, project their expectations onto their mental clay and willingly delude themselves.

Hence why I say that that lucid dreaming isthe superior form of that hybrid state of mind. When you "lucid dream" you recognise it for what it truly is and you can get so much more out of the experience. When you say you "OOBE" or "astral project," you are only limiting and deluding yourself - not to mention that such beliefs were devised by people who knew less or were deliberately

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."